Dead on arrival

We assume that some members of the military junta must like the draft constitution Meechai Ruchupan had drawn up. We know that those involved in concocting it have been told not to criticize it. Yet it seems that, as people read it and consider its potential impacts, it has even less support than the previous junked version. A Bangkok Post editorial called it a “mess.”

One former MP reckons the whole thing is a plot, with the draft charter “written in such a way that it would be rejected in the referendum.” This would allow the junta to stay in place for even longer.

The Post editorial says:

No political party or politician has had a kind word for his work. Newspaper headlines run along the lines of “Thumbs down for charter”. The prime minister already believes voters may reject it at the planned referendum.

Despite all of the above, the governing National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) under Gen Prayut Chan-o-cha intends to push ahead with the draft. It is not clear why. The government and military spokesmen have told the country it is all about the political roadmap controlling the return to civilian government.

But it is all a shambles. Gen Prayut’s original roadmap has been torn up and continually rewritten. The roadmap produced shortly after the May 22, 2014, coup promised elections would be held in 2015. A subsequent roadmap promised elections in mid-2016. That then became 2017 — and last Friday when Mr Meechai presented his draft constitution, 2017 looks like becoming 2018.

The editorial laments the lack of participation: “The lack of participation by the real stakeholders means a draft charter without support.” Even if there were some participation, this wouldn’t have changed the draft. Why the junta wants such a mess is anyone’s guess, but it does point to an intense desire to hold onto power.

So intense has been the criticism that Deputy Prime Minister Wissanu Krea-ngam has already had to engage in constitutional calisthenics to defend its most controversial sections.

Don’t worry about the junta’s charter, he says, because “no constitutions anywhere were completely democratic.” Wissanu went on to defend some of the most undemocratic elements of this draft: further empowering and politicizing the courts and “independent” bodies and the continued use of Article 44, saying the Article “could help make an election more free and fair.” Naturally, he was unwilling or unable to explain how a despotic power could be used in such a manner.

Conservatives and anti-democrats seem unhappy. Well-known yellow shirt Rosana Tositakul seems disturbed by the whole thing now, even though she was imploring the military to intervene and throw out an elected government just a short time ago. She reckons that this is a charter for tycoons and nobles, potentially worse than the Thaksin regime. She seems unwilling to lie in the political bed with the monster she helped create.

Others who are regime supporters are tossing out lines that were also used in 2007: Kamnoon Sidhisamarn “said people appear to be left with few choices. If they want ‘certainty’, they will be compelled to vote for the draft charter as a way to ensure a general election is held in the latter half of next year under the NCPO’s roadmap.” However, it is clear that “certainty” is just being sure that the elections will mean nothing much at all, with political power in the hands of unelected elites and the military brass.

On May 1992, part II

In part I, we posted on a speech by the notorious royalist poseur Bowornsak Uwanno, who misused the occasion of a remembrance of the military’s murder of democracy and murder of civilian in May 1992.

In another report at The Nation on a memorial event, it is stated that “politicians and political groups yesterday attended a memorial service to remember those who lost their lives in the Black May 1992 political uprising.” It seems to us that the military dictatorship tried to manage this event as it was attended by “representatives of the junta-appointed agencies known as the ‘Five Rivers’. They included Prime Minister’s Office Minister Panadda Diskul, National Legislative Assembly (NLA) vice president Surachai Liengboonlertchai, Ekachai Sriwilat[,] Prasarn Marukpitak and Rosana Tositrakul members of the [puppet] National Reform Council (NRC).”

Even if any of this lot had any reason to be there, it seems they have forgotten the meaning of 1992. All are rabid monarchists and pro-military flunkies. Rosana is a strident yellow shirt who has supported all anti-democrats since 2004. Surachai is one of Rosana’s allies in the anti-democratic Group of 40 Senators, mostly unelected after 2007, who are ultra-royalists and deeply yellow. So is Prasarn. Panadda is a devoted royalist, specialized in self-promotion and a dedicated restorationist, committed to dictatorship and absolutism. They insult the memory of the dead.

Amongst attendees, there were some with a real connection to the events in 1992, including “red-shirt co-leader of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) Jatuporn Promphan and yellow-shirt co-leader of the People’s Democratic Reform Committee Pipop Thongchai.”

That the Democrat Party sent representatives is also insulting of those who died in 1992 for the Party was prepared to deal with the military then, if it got them close to power. Nothing much has changed.

The egregious Panadda said that the “incident” in May 1992 – he means the massacre of civilians – “showed the public’s will to achieve democracy.” It did, but to disgrace that resolve by linking it to The Dictator and self-appointed Prime Minister, General Prayuth Chan-ocha, and to claim that this vandal of democracy “had recognised the people of Thailand’s wish to see real democracy in the country…” is disgusting.

Rosana is as bad, saying that May 1992 “occurred because all the heroic people wanted to see reform of the political system without any influence. They hoped that the election would lead to the development of a strong democracy and that it would not result in a coup.” She’s lost in a make-believe history and she manages to link an anti-military uprising to the 2006 and 2014 military putsches, which she enthusiastically supported.

For those wanting a useful summary of the events of the time, not least as an antidote for the tripe served up by military flunkies, this PDF, available for free download, is not a bad place to begin.

Yellow reform I

Anti-democrats reject elected politicians and political parties as divisive and corrupt. This is an essential point of the royalist discourse that seeks to limit policy making to the great and the morally good.

Of course, any reasonable assessment indicates that the great are often fabulously corrupt and the morals of the good are usually flexible. The notion of rule by the morally good simply equates with those who slither about saying what great monarchists and loyalists they are. Nepotism and collusion are quite alright if you are of the right politics, as the military dictatorship has so relentlessly demonstrated.

This is why it is expected that a group of the junta’s handpicked National Reform Council (NRC) members led by academic Sungsidh Piriyarangsan should also launch its very own “civic group” which they have called the “Thailand Reform Institute” at Rangsit University.

Along with Chulalongkorn, Rangsit University is one of the centers of anti-democrat/PAD/yellow shirt academic activism. The university is owned by Arthit Ourairat. Arthit’s self-promoting profile is here.

The “new” group at Arthit’s university “was founded to act as a coordinating centre for movements of civic groups working in the areas of national reform and development as well as helping to build a democratic society…”.

Frankly, we do not believe them. We can accept that they might want “reform.” After all, that was the unspecified demand of the anti-democrats who are responsible for the military’s coup, which they repeatedly demanded. But democracy? That’s a stretch for this group.

For a start, the “institute” is as much about disseminating royalist propaganda as gathering “people’s opinions.” The idea that the “institute” would “monitor the government’s use of power” is a stretch too far. Then, the members of the “institute” are dedicated anti-democrats.*

Suriyasai Katasila, listed as “a lecturer at the College of Social Innovation and the Green Group leader, [who] was appointed the director of the newly formed group” by the Bangkok Post is actually a former PAD leader and speaker on the anti-democrat stage.

Other committee members include NRC members “Rosana Tositrakul, Anek Laothammathat, Niran Pitakwatchara of the National Human Rights Commission, Sirichai Mai-Ngam, chairman of the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (Egat) labour union, former PAD leader Pipob Thongchai and academics from various disciplines.”

Rosana is a strident yellow shirt who has supported all anti-democrats since 2004. Most recently, she has opposed having different views on the NRC, so her participation in this “institute” is likely about exclusion rather than inclusion of opposing views.

Anek is one of the ideologues of anti-rural propaganda that denigrates voters as bought, duped and ignorant.

Sirichai heads the unions that have supported every anti-democrat action since 2004. His unions were the ones who went about disconnecting water and electricity at government departments during the anti-democrat protests earlier in the year. All the state enterprises are now controlled by the military.

Pipob is a political ally of Suriyasai and a former member of the PAD leadership.

Suriyasai defended the notion that “some committee members were also on the NRC because talks to establish the institute had taken place before the selection of NRC members. But this would not be a problem in terms of work…”. In fact, conflict of interest is nothing for the “good.” These anti-democrats have colluded for over a decade, so there’s no obstacle to their propaganda work.

*We don’t rule out the possibility that this ginger group could fall out with The Dictator when he begins to make compromises and angles for a longer-term military presence in politics (think of 1991-92). They also want to make sure that he and his junta stay “on track” for radical royalist “reform.”

 

The military and new constitutional diapers

Anyone who follows Thailand’s post-coup politics, dominated by The Dictator and his military brass, knew that the task in “reform” is to change the rules of politics to ensure that electoral politics is made subservient to the royalist elite’s interests. That means making electoral politics far less significant. PPT has suggested that the path chosen is likely to restore a political imbalance something like that of the Prem Tinuslanonda era.

One aspect of the rule changes involves the development of a new constitution. Constitutions are a bit like disposable diapers in Thailand; once the elite feels they are “soiled,” it has its military allies dispose of them. Even so, at least since the 1970s, the ritual of elite control is to come up with a constitution that allows lawless regimes to be lawful.

In moving to have the military’s handpicked puppet assembly establish a puppet National Reform Council (NRC) which then sends some nominations to the military junta for the puppet 36-member charter drafting panel the Bangkok Post reports a small tangle. With so many puppets having their strings pulled, it is inevitable that some knots will have to be unpicked.

Some of the puppets got tangled up and accepted a proposal “invite and nominate outsiders to sit on the 36-member charter drafting panel under its quota.” They wanted “five outsiders should also be invited to join the drafting panel.” These five would be drawn from the People’s Democratic Reform Committee – in case readers have forgotten, this is the anti-democrats who wanted the military’s coup – the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship – the official red shirts – and “representatives of major political parties such as Pheu Thai, the Democrat Party and Chartthaipattana.”

Several consistent anti-democrats were outraged. NRC member Paiboon Nititawan, known as a member of the “Group of 40 [mostly unelected] Senators, rejected the proposal. Paiboon pointed out that the NRC had its marching orders: “Everything is already going well, so why invite trouble?” He pointed out that the military dictatorship has tasked the NRC “with coming up with a blueprint for national reform, a leading role in deciding how the new permanent charter should be written…”.

Another former member of the bright yellow senatorial swill, “NRC member Rosana Tositrakul also disagreed with the proposal, saying it was wrong to appoint those involved in the political conflict to the drafting panel.” In a logical world, this would mean that Rosana would immediately resign. After all, she has repeatedly and stridently supported anti-democratic movements that brought down elected governments and repeatedly stoked “political conflict.” Expecting logic and ethics from Rosana is demonstrably unreasonable.

Of course, Rosana is dissembling. Not only is she one who thrived on “political conflict,” but the fact is that the NRC is full of others who thrived on “political conflict.” Another is “NRC member and former rector of the National Institute of Development Administration Sombat Thamrongthandyawong” who was one of the political strategist for the anti-democrat protesters and repeatedly appeared on the anti-democrat’s stage. He rejected the proposal.

Like children in diapers, the anti-democrats may sometimes throw little temper tantrums, but they will do as they are told. In fact, most of them don’t need to be told by the bosses, for they know what an anti-democrat constitution needs to look like.

Rewarding the anti-democrats I

In an earlier post, PPT referred to the fiction of a separation between the military junta and the government. In another post, we pointed out the obvious: that the National Legistlative Assemby is a puppet assembly.

In this context of the military junta’s control of all government it is to be expected that the (fake) National Reform Council (NRC) will be stuffed full of the military’s political allies. Some time ago PPT posted from The Nation, stating that the leaking of 173 names claimed to have been selected for the National Reform Council (NRC) “clearly signify political bias and social exclusion, which could lead to unfair reform proposals that will make all reconciliation efforts fail…”.

The uniform you have when you slip out of the Army uniform

Did this cause The Dictator to pause? Not a bit. He did exactly what the critics suggested. The military dictatorship has hand picked the NRC crammed with anti-democrats and fascists.

Khaosod reports that “Thailand’s military junta has appointed a 250-member reform body that is heavily stacked with traditional elites and allies of the country’s conservative establishment.”

General Prayuth Chan-ocha had lied that “the NRC would represent a balanced cross-section of society,” but it doesn’t. The final list of members “is dominated by conservative hardliners opposed to the former government.” Khaosod lists some of them:

Among them were nine leaders from the anti-government protests that preceded the coup, including Naowarat Pongpaiboon, Sombat Thamrongthanyawong, and Charas Suwanmala.

The protest group, known as the People’s Committee for Absolute Democracy With the King As Head of State (PCAD), campaigned against the former government for seven months until the military intervened and launched a coup in May.

Eleven of the ‘Forty Senators’ clique – a group of unelected Senators who opposed the former government – also made the final cut, such as Rosana Tositrakul, Kamnoon Sitthisaman, and Pramote Maiklat. The so-called Forty Senators played an active role in the PCAD’s campaign to unseat then-Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra and replace her with a royally-appointed PM.

In addition, 31 retired military officers were added to the reform council, as well as nine members of the governing bodies appointed by the previous coup-makers in 2006.

It is as if The Dictator is rewarding those who worked so hard for the coup and against elections earlier in the year.

Updated: Double standards as wide as an ocean

The term “double standards” has been used to describe judicial and political actions in Thailand that means that there is one law for the rich and another for the rest. In recent has also been used to accurately portray a political bias where one side of politics – the royalists – get favored treatment over the rest. That the rich and the royalists have considerable overlap is well-known.

It is no surprise then when the Bangkok Post lauds yet one more confirmation of gross double standards under the military dictatorship that illegally seized state power in May this year. The Bangkok Post’s lauding of double standards might have a lot to do with the fact that the company that owns it was headed by a double coup supporting minor prince who drools at the opportunity to once again work for the corrupt and murderous military.

In an editorial the Post lavishes undeserved praise on the military dictatorship for its decision “to free Veera Somkhwamkid, leader of the Thai Patriots Network, and seven other members of an energy policy reform group, without pressing any charges against them…”. Veera is a People’s Alliance for Democracy associate and ultra-nationalist who has wanted to provoke war with Cambodia and whose release from jail in Cambodia was prompted by the military dictatorship’s willingness to create a crisis by sending Cambodian workers streaming back home in a fear campaign that was for Veera’s benefit and also effectively brought Hun Sen “into line” through a threat to the workers’ remittances.

The Post’s editorial is bizarre. It lists the repression of free speech (which affects everyone in Thailand, not just the looney rightists):

The eight activists were arrested by police on Sunday for staging a protest march against energy policy and violating martial law. The order to arrest them was made by Pol Maj Gen Amnuay Nimmano, deputy commissioner of the Police Education Bureau, currently in charge of security affairs and peace maintenance in Bangkok.

Last week in Hat Yai, a handful of activists from the energy policy reform network were arrested as they embarked on a 950km march to Bangkok to raise public awareness of their demand for changes to national energy policy.

They were held in military custody for five days before being released.

The group was allowed to continue the march on the condition that they must end it at 5pm each day and no public forums or public speeches were carried out throughout the walking protest.

That seems like a reasonable account of the actions taken by the military dictatorship against these protesters, and they have been even more repressive against those seen as enemies and opponents. However, the Post gets out the bottom polishing rag and declares, against all logic:

Thanks to openness on the part of the NCPO [it means the military junta], Mr Veera and his associates were released so they could join academics, government officials and energy activists in a public forum yesterday to discuss energy issues.

One hopes the group of experts will seize this opportunity to present its views and rationale for energy policy changes to the public.

It is regrettable that former senator Rosana Tositrakul, a vocal critic of the PTT Public Company who claims current energy policy favours the oil and gas giant, could not attend the public discussion. She explained she had an appointment which could not be cancelled at such short notice.

Openness? Really? The Post also doesn’t mention that Rosana is another ultra-nationalist, ultra-yellow PAD supporter who has promoted a range of anti-democratic actions over a decade and more.

The Post reckons that The Dictator, General Prayuth Chan-ocha, who recently had himself made premier, is loosening up because he said the junta “will only use the special powers vested upon them by martial law and the interim constitution when necessary for the sake of national security.” The Post seems to hope that this means that the anti-democrats, ultra-royalists and ultra-nationalists can “participate” and have “free expression.” It makes this clear when it states:

Clampdowns on free expression such as public gatherings which, by their nature, do not pose any security threat but merely voice grievances to get the attention of the powers that be, should be carried out with greater discretion and prudence, or avoided altogether.

The Post is openly supporting dictatorship and effectively making the case for huge double standards. The military dictatorship determines what is a “security threat” and it is as clear as can be that this means red shirts and anti-coup activists. Sure the Post bleats about “free spirit” and “rights,” but its approach is partisan, promotes double standards and is supportive of dictatorship.

Update: Yes, we should have checked when we were pointing at Pridiyathorn Devakula above as a coup-loving Chairman of the Board at Post Publishing. We should have checked how many other coup-loving, military paid servants were at the same company. Fortunately, as all these military servants resign so they can be appointed to various puppet ministries, the Post is telling us. The latest military harlot to resign from Post Publishing is Wissanu Krea-ngam, another serial offender who drools at the opportunity to once again work for the corrupt and murderous military.

 

For us, against us

The lines of demarcation between the junta and its opponents are reasonably clear, as two recent event demonstrate.

If you are an ally of the junta, you get special treatment.

Bangkok Pundit recently suggested that the massive Cambodian migrant worker “exodus was so quick that it has no doubt caused political problems in Cambodia, [and] … forced Hun Sen to cooperate with the junta. (Veera’s release?).” Veera is Veera Somkwamkid, the People’s Alliance for Democracy-associate ultra-nationalist member of the Thai Patriot Network, who was detained in Cambodia following a border incursion in 2011. When he was released a few days ago, all of the old hyper-nationalist, yellow shirts got together for a party to welcome back their “hero.”

As the Bangkok Post reports, the party was arranged at the at the Royal Turf Club, where General Boonlert Kaewprasit was host. Boonlert is a favorite of the military and royalist elite not least because he was one of those who managed the revival of anti-democrat street protests for the PAD lot prior to the mobilizations that became the Suthep Thaugsuban anti-democrats, who paved the way for the coup…. and the rest is history, as they say.

The military dictatorship became worried, after the fact, that the welcome party might be seen as “double standards,” not that such claims seem to bother them in other spheres. The party was attended not just by Boonlert, but a bunch of others from the military and the anti-Thaksin Shinawatra movement including “Gen Preecha Iamsuphan, former senators Prasarn Maruekpitak, Khamnoon Sitthisamarn and Rosana Tositrakul, national artist Naowarat Pongpaiboon and other activists.”

So Veera and Boonlert were called in by the junta. The result was a bit of hugging and and a public reprimand. Then, as the Post reports it, after a couple of hours, they were “allowed to go home after a meeting with a high level officer of the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO).” They even went on television to “explain”:

Gen Boonlert said in an interview with television reporters afterwards that Gen Paiboon Khumchaya, the assistant army chief and NCPO’s chief of legal and justice affairs section, asked him and Mr Veera to let the NCPO know before conducting any activity which may be construed as violating the NCPO’s orders including the ban on a political gatherings.

They agreed to comply with the request, Gen Boonlert said.

If you are seen as an opponent of the coup, you get very different treatment. Boonlert and Veera get mainstream media coverage for the party and its aftermath. Most of those present, as yellow shirt supporters of the coup, go about their business, political and otherwise. But not opponents. Khaosod reports the second detention of Thanapol Eawsakul, editor of Fa Diaw Kan.

A “senior army officer” says that the editor is having his attitude “re-adjusted.” Why? Because of “critical Facebook comments violated a condition he signed before being released from his first bout of military detention. That release form barred Mr. Thanapol from participating in politics or expressing any opinions that ‘incite unrest’.” Should the “military decide to charge Mr. Thanapol with violating the NCPO’s release conditions, the activist will be tried in military court and could face up to two years in prison.”

Compare the re-education and multiple detention of an activist writing on Facebook with the military junta’s freeing of Veera and the treatment of their friends Boonlert and Veera. This is not about double standards but about the nature of the military regime.

The privy council remains interventionist

Privy Council President and former royalist premier General Prem Tinsulanonda may be aged and far less mentally agile than he was a few years ago when he engineered support for the 2006 military coup. Even so, he remains politically influential. So do other privy councilors.

On 14 March, Prem dressed up in his beloved military uniform and shuffled off to Sakol Nakorn to dedicate a statue to General Kris Sivara and is said to have asked for all Northeastern-based colonels to meet him, telling them that the Army is the only institution that the people can rely on. His visit coincides with the transfer of rabidly anti-red shirt commanders to Bangkok.

Meanwhile, at the Bangkok Post, there are other admissions of privy council meddling. The Post seems to imply that some of the old men like “Anand Panyarachun, … Pridiyathorn Devakul and … Somkid Jatusripitak have been suggesting in the past month that a new type of leader may be needed to replace the embattled caretaker premier Yingluck Shinawatra.”

The name mentioned in this context is none other than Privy Councilor Palakorn Suwanrath. Anti-democrats apparently think he is “a strong candidate for the ‘neutral’ premier to lead the divided country.”

Palakorn, at about 65, is s spring chicken in the aged care house that is the privy council. Palakorn qualification is that he “has been a close aide to … the Queen … [and] has held various posts including Pattani governor and director of the Southern Border Provinces Administrative Centre…”.

The Post jokes that “privy councillors normally steer clear of voicing political comments…” and then proves this is a laugh by saying that:

Palakorn … said the elite members of the [Vajiravudh] college should not stay neutral amid the current state of politics and must stand by the monarchy as more attacks against the higher institution were being seen amid the intensifying political situation.

Apparently recently Palakorn went further suggesting a “neutral prime minister” might be a woman, prompting claims that his preferred candidate is the deeply yellow-shirted Rosana Tositakul who is arguably the least “neutral” person in Bangkok.

It seems that Palakorn is as detached from reality as the rest of the old men who meet to plot and scheme against elected governments.

Updated: Judicial action II

The royalists have pinned their hopes and dreams on the judiciary and the king. At the moment, they hope to prevent parliament amending the constitution, as it is empowered to do.

At The Nation it is reported that Democrat Party MP Nipit Intarasombat sees “no justification for the prime minister’s rush for royal approval on charter change before the judicial ruling.” In fact, as we understand it, once a bill is passed in parliament, the premier is required to have it transmitted to the palace for approval within 20 days.

Four royalist senators, headed by the bright yellow Rosana Tositakul, have “petitioned for the charter court to issue an injunction against seeking royal approval until the completion of the judicial review on charter change.” They join a list of other petitioners, and the Constitutional Court has combined several of these for consideration.

The last gasp hope is that the king would not approve the bill so that it would not become law, and would allow the royalists to then demand the ouster of the government for having “offended” the king.

Update: The Nation reports that Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra has sent the bill to the palace for ratification. The next step will be interesting.

Unelected and unrepresentative

As the constitutional amendment debate heats up once again, the yellow-shirted allies including the Democrat Party and a range of ultra-royalists are coming together to parrot their opposition. This is an alliance that has remained largely unchanged since 2005 and which has not changed its stance on the junta-initiated constitution since 2007.

Interestingly, one of the key yellow groups has been the mainly unelected “Group of 40 Senators.” Outspoken, ultra-royalists aligned with the most right-wing groups  and the military, this group is critical in opposing constitutional change and maintaining anti-democratic political positions.

In doing this, they protect themselves. At The Nation, it is reported that the unelected junta spawn senators oppose “efforts to amend the Constitution to require all senators to be elected…”.  Elections are anathema for this group as they know that elections reject royalists like themselves.

While “checks and balances are required, this undemocratic lot have shown little tolerance for elections or for the parties elected. In fact, they have repeatedly denigrated the electorate as “buffaloes” and “uneducated.” Far from being “independent,” these senators have acted as if they are nothing more than the extremist wing of the Democrat Party.

One of these extremists, Rosana Tositakul, explains that:

…  the Group of 40 Senators … was formed in 2008 when senators, who were opposed to charter amendments, held a meeting. That day, 40 senators joined the meeting so the group took the name of the Group of 40 Senators…. Since the group was formed, their members have had luncheon meetings every month by using birthdays of group members for the dates for get-togethers. They often discuss current issues. Senator Paibul Nititawan coordinated and scheduled the meetings.

Rosana, who has a middle-class NGO background, embraces the royalist-military perspective on the Senate:

Senators should come from several professions. Since critics say appointed senators were selected by only a seven-member panel, I would like each profession to nominate a representative qualified to be a senator to be elected by the people, so that they will not be attacked as not being accountable to the community….

These critics should not neglect the experience of  elected upper houses in other countries. Elected senators can be critical. This was demonstrated for Thailand when an elected Senate provided a base for a critical group that repeatedly challenged the then Thaksin Shinawatra government.